Black Media.. Digital Extension of Violence and Hate Speech Arenas
Mohammed Alam
Translated by Moatinoon
Digital media is an important tool in taking what is happening on the ground to broader perspectives and wider audiences. However, there have been negative effects on this evolving type of media transmission, which is now being used as an extension of the battles around us.
Many digital media experts today use the term extended self or self-extension, borrowed from psychology, to refer to the identity we create for ourselves on social media sites. The term also refers to smartphones that have become an integral part of our selves, we feel a great loss if we lose them.
In this article, I borrow the concept of extension to describe a phenomenon that has become an essential feature in todays conflicts, armed, political or social. The phenomenon under discussion is the role of digital media in fuelling conflict, broadcasting hate speech and inciting violence. The battlegrounds have recently stretched to make Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Telegram and other major arenas in which parties try to make their voices louder, their messages more widespread, and their vision is truth.
The concept of extension can also be borrowed to describe the role of digital media today in conflict situations from being an extension and expansion of traditional medias role in covering and transmitting conflicts. Over the past century, many journalists have put their lives at risk to convey the incidents of violence from the event site, as well as their interest in conveying the suffering of civilians and those not involved in the conflict. With the changes in the current century from the publics proximity to journalists and each other, and the rising challenges journalists face in covering conflicts, digital media platforms have provided tools that will facilitate the work of war reporters, bringing them closer to sources of information and to their future simultaneously and in a small, one-page, one-name, or one-channel world.
Despite the positive effects and uses of digital media in conflict situations, the past few years have seen several examples demonstrating the platforms usability as a double-edged weapon. On the one hand, digital media platforms provide alternative spaces for expression, transmission and coverage of facts from angles not covered by traditional media. These platforms also enabled at-risk groups, such as migrants and displaced persons, to access information and data, which were sometimes life-saving. A UNHCR study found that both the smartphone and the Internet were important for refugees safety and security, such as food, shelter and water. We also saw how WhatsApp, Facebook and other social media were used to transmit abnormal detention conditions to some migrants. These examples are the tip of the iceberg and demonstrate the effective role of social information during the armed conflicts that have struck the Arab region in recent years.
But there is a dark side, in which digital media has been used to fuel rhetoric that embraces violence, incites hatred and perpetuates sectarianism. Some studies have addressed the role of social media platforms in influencing users behaviors. For example, our exposure to certain doses of information, whether correct or false, may alter or entrench our vision of the other. Notwithstanding the violation of that other us in social, ethnic or religious identity, or even just our political or artistic views, this influence is of great importance in shaping our contemporary societies, which sometimes seek to integrate cultures and break down barriers and borders. Recent research has shown that our exposure to inflammatory rhetoric may reduce our sensitivity to each other and increase our distancing, reinforcing our prejudices.
Of course, the roles and effects of negative digital media in the event of armed conflict or other forms of violence are not necessarily themselves in the event of political turmoil, or in the event of peace and stability, but are certainly even more severe, particularly for the lives of civilians and those most at risk. Myanmar provides an outstanding example of this. This Asian country has a great population and cultural diversity, a multi-ethnic, multilingual and multicultural country, but unfortunately Facebook has played a critical role in fuelling hate speech, as noted by a United Nations investigation team. The site is not only a platform for communication and social participation, but also a tool for some extremists to incite violence and hatred. This recently forced Facebook to delete accounts of public figures and organizations seeking to prevent those people from using the service to create further racial and religious tensions.
In Libya, a small country compared to Myanmar, with a population of approximately 6 million, Facebook and networking sites play at least as dangerous a variety of roles as in Myanmar. In the midst of armed conflict and the proliferation of weapons in a country whose people are suffering from the scourge of war, both arms and human traffickers have found the site an effective tool to promote their products and services. We find that the use of digital media to broadcast inflammatory messages and sometimes spread rumours is no different from being on the pages and accounts of States, their institutions and armed forces on the one hand, or irregular armed groups on the other. Everyone considers Facebook and other platforms as an extension of a battleground in which to excel and win the battle.
On a more positive level, research has recently found the possibility of leveraging Facebook in Myanmar to build peace by broadcasting messages that will positively influence the behaviours of millions of service users. For its part, Facebook, through some initiatives, is also promoting tolerance and promoting hate speech. To date, however, these initiatives have seen no tangible results.
Although many owners and operators of social media services are blamed for allowing violent and hate speech to be on their platforms pages, an essential part of the responsibility lies with users of these services as well. Universal censorship is almost impossible in an era characterized by freedom of expression and pluralism of opinion. Because of the sensitivity and specificity of times of armed conflict, Governments, non-governmental organizations, armed and political groups and other actors must raise awareness of the seriousness of using digital media platforms to fuel conflict and incite further violence and hatred. Despite the legitimacy of attacking military targets at specific scales in times of war, the rhetoric of violence and hatred does not distinguish between military and civilian. Although attacking a military objective may result in real-time material loss, the loss and societal fracture resulting from the effects of hate speech usually persist for generations and may result in uninterrupted conflicts for decades to come.
This article was published in Issue 64 of Humanity Magazine in December 2018 as part of the Private Journalists Wars file in the magazine issue for the twenty-year anniversary of its launch.
Source:
blogs dot icrc dot org
